Dave Dyer wrote:
Arguments about the quality of compiler optimizations vs. hand coding
are pointless, because programmers optimize programs in ways that compilers
are (correctly) forbidden to do; by changing the algorithm.
I've heard of no such law or rule. There are several compilers or
Languages like SQL and Prolog don't specify algorithms, they describe
the desired result. I agree that the quality of compilers that turn these
specifications into algorithms can improve dramatically, and that
this kind of specification is a great way to increase the productivity
of programming
Languages like SQL and Prolog don't specify algorithms, they describe
the desired result. I agree that the quality of compilers that turn these
specifications into algorithms can improve dramatically, and that
this kind of specification is a great way to increase the productivity
of programming
Dave Dyer wrote:
Languages like SQL and Prolog don't specify algorithms, they describe
the desired result. I agree that the quality of compilers that turn these
specifications into algorithms can improve dramatically, and that
this kind of specification is a great way to increase the
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 10:10 -0800, Dave Dyer wrote:
Getting back to go In my dreams I could write
select groups where safetyalpha and sizebeta and color=black
That is not that hard to implement, given a proper definition of
safety. Subqueries are left as an exercise to the
Dave Dyer wrote:
Languages like SQL and Prolog don't specify algorithms, they describe
the desired result.
What's the difference? The two are very much intermingled when you get
to high-level optimizations.
I agree that the quality of compilers that turn these
specifications into
Dave Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Languages like SQL and Prolog don't specify algorithms, they
describe the desired result.
Take a look as Haskell -- it's a very high level language but
functional, so you are describing algorithms in it. Yet the compiler
has so much knowledge (because of a
Arguments about the quality of compiler optimizations vs. hand coding
are pointless, because programmers optimize programs in ways that compilers
are (correctly) forbidden to do; by changing the algorithm.
For example, if I happen to know x will always be an integer
from 0 to 359, I can
Why should a super-sophisticated compiler with algebraic type
inference not be able to do this one day?
On Nov 22, 2007 12:36 AM, Dave Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguments about the quality of compiler optimizations vs. hand coding
are pointless, because programmers optimize programs in
Because many optimizations take exponential or worse
time to figure out if they apply. This means that
the sun would explode before your compile would finish.
Yes, compilers will get more sophisticated over time.
No, they will not replace any algorithms or data structures.
Michael Wing
Why
Arguments about the quality of compiler optimizations vs. hand coding
are pointless, because programmers optimize programs in ways that compilers
are (correctly) forbidden to do; by changing the algorithm.
For example, if I happen to know x will always be an integer
from 0 to 359, I can
I agree with you 100%. You embody the methodology behind C++. The only
problem I can see with adding something like that to C++ is that many times
the compiler can't determine at compile time if a value is violating the
contract. If the feature were added to C++, the programmer would have to be
12 matches
Mail list logo
